Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[darinhouston]

Darin,

You're making statements again that have holes in them. You say, "I didn't suggest the Catholic Church is wrong on all doctrines..." but in your statement we are wrong on certain doctrines. We are right on some but wrong on others, correct?

Here's where you make no sense, "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture...". So if we are all trying to be true to Scripture then how can you say anyone is wrong? I gave an example of the Sabbath observance, just as an example. I didn't bring it up to get off subject but as you can see others don't see eye to eye on that either and using the Scriptures alone it has no definitive answer. If I were to mention whether Jesus is God we would have the same disagreement! If you use the Bible only you really get messy!

As I have said before, God did not leave us to be in endless debate. He gave us the Church, " That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Tom

I can (and do) say the RCC is wrong on some things and not wrong on others -- you can't say that the RCC is wrong on anything, can you? If you could, then we could all agree that all of our churches are in the same situation, striving to figure out what is wrong and right according to Scripture. The problem we have is the claims of exclusivity to make and teach doctrine that the RCC makes, and the obligation of all believers to submit to it to obtain the graces of the Father, etc.

It gets messy sometimes when we as sinners try to use our own wisdom no matter what earthly authority we ascribe to or even if we don't acknowledge any earthly authority. I agree God did not intend for us to be in endless debate. Indeed, your example of the Sabbath is such a doctrine that scripture indicates that reasonable men could disagree on. The problem is not having people believe differently about some things, but in the disagreeability of some sinners in the way they disagree with us other sinners. That is a problem of failing to live by the Spirit, and not a problem with our not submitting to the teachings of the RCC.

In fact, using your example, scripture is actually pretty clear to a reasonable man on this subject (and where it's not taught in scripture or not clear from scripture, we should be able to disagree agreeably with some liberty)... Paul acknowledged that some would disagree and taught us (without need for church authority) how to deal with the subject. We are to let each man follow his own convictions in the matter, but he goes further in Galatians to make it clear that a spiritually mature man would let these things go, and he was frustrated that some had not done so.

Paul further comments that we would condemn ourselves before God Himself if we don't follow such personal convictions. What does a Roman Catholic do in such a situation where he has submitted to the church on such a subject out of a submission to the church that supercedes his own convictions?

5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God...12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God...22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

and

9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

[tom]

Darin,

I can (and do) say the RCC is wrong on some things and not wrong on others -- you can't say that the RCC is wrong on anything, can you? If you could, then we could all agree that all of our churches are in the same situation, striving to figure out what is wrong and right according to Scripture.

Here is the problem. I never said the RCC could be wrong on certain teachings. You are the one who said, "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture...". So again, how can you say anyone is wrong as long as they are striving to be true to scripture? Do you see how this is an endless debate? When God set Moses as the leader of the Israelites and by the suggestion of his father-in-law made a hierarchy to get answers to their questions he didn't say go and search the Scriptures daily, that will answer all you questions.

Tom

[popeman]

Dear Tom,

I entered a post asking for a Church that Steve belongs to and you see by simply asking we are getting somewhere…NOWHERE! That is what is terribly confusing here. Christian IS a DENOMINATION…Catholic, Protestant, LDS…etc is a sub-category to that. If someone states “Oh, I am a Christian, then in today’s world it is fair to say ‘What sub-denomination?’. If they are of the generic 1st 100 years Scriptural “Christian” then it is fair to ask who were some of these “Christians” from that era so we can see how “they’ interpreted (wrote) Scripture and tradition, not just their interpretation.

So many on this site have this ethereal “Christian” idea of themselves but when you try to hang your hat on what their history is like they have zero idea of who they are. They can only bring up their personal books they wrote or maybe one person within a generation, but nothing further back. The reason is plain and simple…they would be caught changing what “Christian” meant 2000 years ago to today.

Steve is a great example of that. He points to Scripture but it never seems to have any real relevance on him when interpreted by another Christian. Steve would not fit into the Acts 15/Antioch scenario because he would reject everything that Paul/Barnabus/Jerusalem would tell him about scriptural interpretation.

Steve and others reject ACTS 15 as not being applicable to them because of all sorts of crazy arguments…it applied only to the living Apostles, they could only discuss salvation matters, this denomination, not that one, oh..I’m a Christian not a denomination…etc, etc. If Steve belongs to this ethereal Church that embodies only a group of right-minded Christians then is anyone here on this site of the same Church as Steve? Or is Steve the only member? Please speak up.

If there are two of you, then can we continue to see if MATT 18 means anything to you or is this, again, only applicable to the most ancient of Christians, too. Let’s pretend that there are several “Steve” Christians (we've got to give you a name now because your definition is new to many of us). Let’s just say that one of the Steve Christians has an argument with another of the same Steve Christians by accusing him/her of being a liar. Can the Steve Christian church turn their fellow Christian into a tax collector or a pagan like Scripture states his Church has the authority to do so?

Steve Christians unite! Attack this blasphemous thought that one of your fellow Steve Christians can have such authority over you. Tom, you should ask if you can become a Steve Christian and what it takes to be one so that you can ask this Church to turn some others into pagans!! Peace out, Popeman

[darinhouston]

Darin,

I can (and do) say the RCC is wrong on some things and not wrong on others -- you can't say that the RCC is wrong on anything, can you? If you could, then we could all agree that all of our churches are in the same situation, striving to figure out what is wrong and right according to Scripture.

Here is the problem. I never said the RCC could be wrong on certain teachings. ".

I understand that you never said the RCC could be wrong on certain teachings. What I suggested was a hypothetical that if you could, then we would be on some common ground. That's the problem -- you don't recognize the fallibility of the Pope or the RCC in doctrinal matters, and hold them and their writings/teachings on par with Scripture (or even above it to the extent we're correct that it sometimes conflicts with it).

You are the one who said, "... as long as we are striving to be true to scripture... So again, how can you say anyone is wrong as long as they are striving to be true to scripture? Do you see how this is an endless debate? [/tom]

There are some things we might disagree on which I would not feel comfortable saying definitively that you (or anyone else) were "wrong." However, with some teachings I might say that I disagree with you (or someone else) and believe you are wrong, but I would hope to maintain enough humility to realize that although all I know may lead me to believe this, I could, in fact, be wrong (or both of us).

There are other things, however, where I hope you would agree we could positively and with good conviction say that someone was "wrong" about. For instance, if someone denied that Jesus was the Messiah, I would hope we could point to scripture and with solid assurance say "you are wrong." But, even then, we would only be justified in doing so if we could point to scripture to prove how they were wrong.

When God set Moses as the leader of the Israelites and by the suggestion of his father-in-law made a hierarchy to get answers to their questions he didn't say go and search the Scriptures daily, that will answer all you questions.

The pre-Christ Israelites were in a significantly different position than we are. First, the spirit had not come and the new covenant had not been instituted such that people had the spirit within them to lead them to truth from scripture. They also needed Moses to tell them how to live because the law had not been given fully -- this was (as I understand it) the way the law was actually developed and instituted. Those in subsequent generations could, in fact, refer to Scripture as the law had been given. And, in the New Covenant, we do not have such a hierarchy provided for us. Besides, did Christ say to those who followed Him that the holy Fathers and the chosen hierarchy had spoken of Him? No, He referred them to the Scriptures, themselves. Did the Bereans tell Paul -- "hold on while we consult our rabbis?" No, they tested what he told them against Scripture.

[steve]

Popeman,

Though you addressed you comments (for some reason) to Tom, and not to me (are you afraid to speak directly to me?), I assume that I am the one in a position to answer your perplexity. Your entire rant depends upon the validity of this statement:

I entered a post asking for a Church that Steve belongs to and you see by simply asking we are getting somewhere…NOWHERE! That is what is terribly confusing here. Christian IS a DENOMINATION…Catholic, Protestant, LDS…etc is a sub-category to that. If someone states “Oh, I am a Christian, then in today’s world it is fair to say ‘What sub-denomination?’.

So you say, but why is anyone obliged to agree with your premise? This principle is not stated by Jesus or the Apostles. Nor is it in the writings of the church fathers. In fact, it is nothing more than an expression of your own bias. Ironically, your main complaint about my position is that it reflects my own bias. You and I are in a similar position then. The difference is, my bias is based upon the actual teachings of the New testament. Your bias is based upon...what?...your own bias alone.

In one sense, to say that my "Church" is found "NOWHERE," is quite true. I am not the founder of any church, and no assembly anywhere should be referred to as "Steve's church." I own no church, nor do I wish to own one. There is already one universal and eternal Church (there is no room for a second), and it belongs to Christ, not to me, or to you, or to the pope. Christ's Church can actually be found everywhere (there is even some small overlap between its membership and that of the church you attend).

It is not my place to form or even to choose one of several churches. There is only one Church, the Body of Jesus Christ, and the only decision I can make is whether I will be a part of it, or of no church at all.

It is not surprising that my clear statements still confuse you. You do not understand spiritual things because (I am making an educated guess here) you have not the Spirit of God in you. I seldom make such judgments of fellow believers, but the fruit of the Spirit, which is evident in regenerated people, is not evident in your writings. If I am mistaken about you, God knows I am not trying to be vindictive. I am only pointing out that one who has not the Spirit of Jesus cannot discern the things of the Spirit, which means he cannot understand the actual nature of the Church, and is likely to settle, instead, for a carnally-defined institutional model. You make no secret of the fact that this is what you have done.

The true Body of Christ is defined relationally, with the primary relational "common denominator" being love of Christ and His brethren. This Church is found in a million places—wherever sincere believers gather. It is not "NOWHERE." The fact that you cannot see it, even though I have plainly described it to you, even as unto a child, suggests the possibility that you are living in a different world from that in which this Church exists. It is likely that, if you were to be born again, this deficiency would change.

[mdh]

Popeman,

If Steve belongs to this ethereal Church that embodies only a group of right-minded Christians then is anyone here on this site of the same Church as Steve? Or is Steve the only member? Please speak up.

If there are two of you, then can we continue to see if MATT 18 means anything to you or is this, again, only applicable to the most ancient of Christians, too. Let’s pretend that there are several “Steve” Christians (we've got to give you a name now because your definition is new to many of us). Let’s just say that one of the Steve Christians has an argument with another of the same Steve Christians by accusing him/her of being a liar. Can the Steve Christian church turn their fellow Christian into a tax collector or a pagan like Scripture states his Church has the authority to do so?

Steve Christians unite! Attack this blasphemous thought that one of your fellow Steve Christians can have such authority over you. Tom, you should ask if you can become a Steve Christian and what it takes to be one so that you can ask this Church to turn some others into pagans!! Peace out, Popeman

Wouldn't it be interesting if you turned out to be a "Steve Christian". I believe I am. That is, if I understand what you mean by this term. I believe myself to be a "member" of the same "Church" as Steve. I think Steve (and I) would hold that all who call Jesus as Lord, and choose to follow Him in faith and obedience are members of this "Church", also known as the Body of Christ.

There seems to be some hard feelings between some members of the RCC at this forum and those who are not members of this organization. I wish this were not true. I wish we could speak with each other as brothers and sisters. For myself, I do not wish to consider RCC members as being outside the "Church". (Some may be, but I think that would be true at just about any local gathering of Christ followers). What can I do to improve the level of fellowship between us? I am praying for this!

Peace to you, Brother Popeman!
Mike

[Homer]

Popeman & Tom,

I noticed this thread a few days ago and have finally read the posts up to this point. You make an interesting point with your argument regarding church discipline when a brother (or sister) sins against another. You have brought up an example of someone being accused of telling a lie. I am curious how this works in practical terms in your church. Assuming the first two steps have failed to bring it to a satisfatory resolution and Tom goes to your church and says "Popeman has lied about me", who is it Tom actually goes to? Is it your local priest? Is he then infallible in determining whether Popeman has told a lie? Or does he need to go all the way to the Pope for an infallible decision? Is there some other infallible process for resolution of the matter?

Also, how does your Pope become infallible? Does a majority vote by a group of fallibles (say, 25 yes and 23 no) result in one becoming infallible, or does it happen by some mysterious process not revealed in scripture? Is the doctrine of Papal infallibility established in scripture? If we are to believe in the authority of the Pope, the Roman Church, and its dogma, because of what the scriptures say, and believe what the scriptures say based on what the Pope and the Roman Church says, isn't this the sort of circular argument you accuse others of?

If the Pope is infallible, then why did Pope Adrian VI deny that this was so? If he was correct in his denial, then the Pope is not infallible, and if he erred in this crucial point of dogma, then his error proves the Pope is not infallible. This ought to be obvious when one considers that Popes have annulled decrees of other Popes. And Pope Martin V confirmed the decree of the council of Constance, which placed a general council above the Pope, and then this same Pope subsequently issued a decree forbidding all appeals from the Pope to a general council. Was the pope infallible in both of these decisions, one contradicting the other?

Just wondering.

God bless, Homer

[popeman]

Dear last three post (people),

I address Tom directly because he seems to be alone on many matters and then Steve, et al, indirectly knowing they will read/respond. Don’t be offended just respond, if you wish. The problem is that all the responding posts address something about the RCC, the Pope, infallibility but have avoided what was being placed on the table.

OK, OK…you are all of a non-denominational Christian church, but then it is still very much that "church" that is addressed in Matt 18 that offers a series of resolution steps for a Christian who has a sin problem with a fellow Christian. Let me make up a simple scenario. It appears by your own admissions that Steve, Homer and Mike are all the same Christian mold (Scriptural Christians , the Steve-type, denomination or not) referred to in scripture. For the sake of discussion, lets say Steve has sinned against Mike (or at least that is the perception/accusation). Mike would then have the Christian right to exercise Matt 18’s series of steps in an attempt to resolve the matter (and rightfully so, Steve would have the ability to defend his action through Matt 18). Regardless of the outcome, then you believe that Scripture is correct here…that this “church” of yours has the right to turn away one of you as a pagan or tax collector, if you do not agree with the church?

Even if all three of you say that you are not of the same Christian mold than I would assume somewhere out there there are three same Christians that Steve has proposed. One of them has a sin problem against the other. Matt 18 is a resolution factor for them, then it would be a correct assumption that this Church has the authority to mandate a sinning Christian as a pagan/tax collector, right?

Remember that this Matt 18 verse finishes stating what your church can do to you (pagan, etc), and does not stop there but confirms it with some very strong language by stating “whatever you bind” will be done and goes on to confirm what two of you agree upon will be done. MATT 18-17-19 “…But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. 18 Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say F89 to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven…”

So this church of yours does have the authoritative/mandated right to turn away a Christian as a pagan/tax collector (excommunicated vis-à-vis NIV commentary). Popeman

[steve]

Yes. Absolutely.

Now please answer Homer's questions. I am interested in hearing the answer.

[popeman]

Dear Steve and Homer,

My question was asked first. Tom and I have always been getting these distracting questions where we start to go over into another direction before our question is answered. Do you belong to a church that has the scriptural authority of Matt18 that can mandate one of your fellow Christians to be a pagan/tax collector?

Neither you, Homer or Mike, et al can answer "No" to this because it would deny the credibility of Scripture or your present-day "Church", ie, some scripture is non-applicable to your modern "Christians" like you have described. You also can not answer "Yes" because it would mean that you actually agree with Catholic Christians that there IS a CHURCH out there (denomination or not) that has mandating authority over another Christian. This would mean that the whole anti-argument of ACTS15 present-day Church authority being something of the past/only salvation/only original apostles...etc as mute because MATT 18 is intended for ALL CHRISTIANS in ALL TIMES.

See, Tom, I told you in my earlier January email this would happen. Steve and this forum can not and will never succumb to any Church authority (Scriptural or not) because it would negate a HUGE aspect of their Christian autonomy. They will do so even to deny scripture ..... cock-a-doodle-do, as the Rooster cries. Popeman